The Demographic Transition

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It pains me much to announce the following: we no longer live in a society built upon Darwinism.

I expect that gasps and cries of panic have surfaced the crowd.

Yes, it pains me as much (if not more) than you. Darwin, my knight in shining armor-- the one man who could explain to me why we do the things we do -- has been cast aside, cast aside as an excuse for poor sociobiology. Worse than that-- cast aside because the fittest no longer have the highest fitness anymore.

Don't get me wrong-- I am the first to correct those who misinterpret Darwin's idea of natural selection as a tribute to "the survival of the fittest". Those who make this mistake under my careful watch are subsequently tared and feather (if they are lucky). However, it would seem that societal interactions have taken a heavy turn within the past decade or so.

Let me describe the general situation to you:

Allie is a eighteen year old woman, who graduated from high school and immediately proceeded to marry her high school sweet heart. Immediately thereafter, she started to reproduce, popping them out like bubble gum year after year after year. Fast forward twenty years and viola-- fourteen children all from the same genetic material. Here's to hoping that Allie's genetic material is impressive, for the general sake of mankind.

Brenda, unlike Allie, pursues schooling at a university before attending medical school. She puts her family life on hold for the sakes of her schooling and ultimately her career. Brenda then proceeds to marry and have one child during her early thirties. Way to perpetuate your genetic material, Brenda. And guessing from your M.D., its too bad that you didn't perpetuate more of your intelligent genetic material into the next generation.

Here you have it: a clear conflict of fitness. Human behavioral evolutionists can't get over this conflict of interests. Why would Brenda want to spend more time pursuing education if its not going to improve her overall reproductive fitness? Sure, her degrees indicate that she has a high degree of intelligence. And yet, according to Darwin, Allie's life choices would be more evolutionary founded.

However, when you look at evolutionary theory, there really isn't anything so special about this. As a result, I, for one, really don't understand this preoccupation with the demographic transition.

Eh, what?

Well, for one, it is widespread evolutionary knowledge that selfish populations tend to not persist, while altruistic populations do persist. If you ask me, we, humans, are simply heading down the road of selfishness-- ultimately kicking ourselves in the foot (so to speak) with a less intelligent population (no offense, Allie). Why should we, humans, be unlike any other selfish animal population that dies out with the embrace of selfish policies?

And back to my previous point, who ever said that Darwinism indicated "survival of the fittest"? Seriously, guys-- come on. Let the brilliant man talk. Darwinism indicates the survival of the luckiest. Yes, Brenda might be fitter in terms of her intelligence than Allie; however, she isn't proving to be so lucky in terms of her inner model of maximizing her reproductive fitness.

Besides, who says that we have to measure fitness in terms of reproductive success? Why don't we measure it in terms of monetary wealth? If you ask me, this would solve this whole problem. Then we could all rest easily.

Would someone please enlighten me as to what is so terribly different about this demographic transition? I am desperately trying to cast off my inner sociobiolgist who tells me that this is indeed the way that humans are supposed to be headed... for the sake of mankind, help me out!

... perhaps Darwin still champions all?

Warm Regards,

Your Inner Cynic

Darwin’s Tree of Life, 2010

“We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically”

~ Neil deGrasse Tyson, an Astrophysicist


Darwin’s observation of evolution and natural selection changed the way that scientists viewed the world. In fact, an American biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, once claimed that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.

I have since been captivated with life’s interconnectedness— captivated with the thought that we are made up of the same elements that make up the stars, the thought that we share ancestors with insects and redwood trees.


Through my memorial, I wish to depict my own captivation with Darwin’s ingenious, as well as display the influence that his observations have had on science. He has given us a new way to think about life around us—that we, indeed, are related to every single organism on this Planet.


My sculpture draws on the essence of this interrelatedness through my depiction of a tree-like structure (a phylogenetic tree). The modules of paper and saran wrap are all essentially the same, with the exception to the randomly placed black dots on ink on the paper. Like every biological organism on this planet, we have all evolved from the same source. However, it is these imperfections that make us unique, and have allowed us to thrive in environments that other organisms may not survive in.


Hence, Darwin’s Tree of Life.